1981

Rajghat 1981

Rajghat, Benares 3rd Public Talk 29th November 1981

This is the last talk of the series.

We have talked about various problems of life. We have talked about the corruption in this country, not that it does not exist in other countries; we have talked about relationship between human beings in which there is hardly any relationship at all for there is no love. And we have also talked about fear and the ending of fear, pleasure, pain, sorrow; and with most of us there is very little of love, and last of all, least of all compassion. And I think we ought to talk over together again the problem of death.

I do not know if you are interested in these problems, how deeply you want to go into them. Though some of you may have casual interest, or some of you may be serious, we ought to consider this question of death, whether it be for the young or for the old, death by accident, death by disease, death by old age, senility. Probably we are already senile when we are educated. No smiles! Probably you don't understand the word senility - it is just as well! And man has always been afraid of this unknown problem, the very complex problem of death. Why human beings have always put death at the end of life. Why human beings, after millennia upon millennia, have considered death as something terrifying. Volumes have been written about it. Psychologists have said to prepare for death. And we human beings in the modern age would rather not talk about it, would rather avoid the question altogether. But if we are serious and concerned with the whole problem of living, existence, and all the travail that is involved in daily life, we ought to consider seriously this question of death, which may also help us to understand the nature of meditation.

So what is death? Why man, human beings throughout the world, have been afraid of this terrible so-called catastrophe? Why human beings have not considered what happens before death rather than what happens after death. Most of us are concerned what takes place when we die, but we never consider what happens before we die. You understand my question? Isn't that far more important than what happens after death? Is it not far more important, essential and necessary whether the life that we lead, confused, uncertain, insecure, full of aches and pains and travail of life, whether that is not far more essential to comprehend than what happens after death. And perhaps then living becomes more important than the dying, then perhaps death and life go together. Are we communicating with each other? Or are you merely agreeing to something that you don't understand?

Which is more important, to understand what happens before death, which is our daily life, what we think, what we feel, how we act, what is our thinking, the nature of thought, is it not far more essential to understand that rather than enquire what happens after death? We shall find out what happens after death, we shall go into it, but shouldn't we consider the way of our life: how vulgar it has become with all these absurd costumes that you are wearing. What is your relationship not only with society but with each other; and also why we live the way we do, deceit, dishonesty, lack of integrity and so on. If that is not considered and transformed basically, then what does death mean? The dying? And what is it that dies? The physical body, the form, the name, and all the attachments to which we are accustomed: the attachment to the family, to your beliefs, to your conclusions, to your gods, to your gurus, to your rituals, you are attached to all that. And death means the ending of all that.

So we ought to go into the question together: what is an ending? To end. We never end anything, we are always wanting to continue. When you end an attachment - please, we are not talking theoretically, or in abstraction, but actually, to end, say for instance your attachment to your guru, the attachment to some kind of belief, when you end it what takes place? Do you understand my question? Have you ever ended anything without any motive, without any conflict, to end? Because without ending there is no new beginning. That is so obvious. If I don't, for example, end my attachment to either this particular property, or attachment to a person, or an attachment to a belief, concept, an ideal, there is a constant continuity of what has been. And therefore what has been becomes mechanical. It is only when I, suppose, end my attachment completely, inwardly, completely end it, only then there is a new beginning, not in continuity. In continuity time is involved: I have been, I will be, I am. That is the process of time. In that process there is nothing new. I am continuing what I have, what I have been, which is modified in the present and continues in the future. It is a cycle. In that cycle there is nothing new taking place. There are variations, but it is not something totally new. Whereas if you end something, if you end your belief, your conclusions, your theories, end everything that you have known, then there is a new beginning. And is death a new beginning? Or the continuation of the old? You understand my question?

Please, do pay a little attention. Do consider what the speaker is saying. Because we are facing a great crisis in the world, of which perhaps most of you are not aware. We are facing the atomic bomb, nuclear bomb and all kinds of horrors are there. And we have continued in a certain pattern of existence all of the known days. You have your peculiar culture and you want to perpetuate that culture - if you ever had it, which I question. We want never to end anything. We want a series of movements which is recognizable, which as a sense of continuity, a sense of security and therefore we are afraid to end anything. End a habit, which means we are afraid of something that we have not already recognized, calculated, known.

If this is clear then what is death? The organism through misuse, through conflict, through disease, through malnutrition and so on will naturally come to an end, whether it dies very young, or fifty years, or a hundred and fifty years, it must inevitably come to an end. You can't help it, you can't say, 'Well, postpone it' however much our little brains may want to continue our absurdities. And death means both organically, the brain cells in themselves because of lack of oxygen, and so on, all that ends. That is a fact. Now who is it that dies? The organism, or the psychological inward structure that we have built through forty years, fifty years, or a hundred years? You are following all this? Who is it that dies apart from the organism? Is it thought that has built the whole structure of the 'me' and consciously or unconsciously we are afraid of that structure of the psyche coming to an end?

I do hope you are following, not the words, not the description, but actually discover for ourselves what we are. That is, we have never investigated what we are. The ancient Greeks, about the fourth or third century BC, or fifth century, have said, 'Know thyself'. I am sure all the literature in this country in different ways have said, 'Know yourself'. What is the 'yourself', the self? Don't invent. Don't follow some psychologist, or what the so-called religious literature has said. Find out what is the self, you. It is that you that is clinging to the present and saying 'I don't want to die'. Right? That is clear. So it is important to understand yourself. To understand it, to look at it, to see the nature of the self as you would critically examine something under a microscope, or look at that tree with obvious design, the outlines, the beauty of the light, the green, the shadows, all that. To look. So similarly, can you look at yourself? Because without knowing yourself profoundly, and discovering whether that self is merely - please listen - a series of words, a series of memories, a conditioning according to the various cultures, society, social conditions, economic conditions and so on, whether that self is an actuality or a structure of words. You are following this? Find out sirs, don't agree with me. I am asking a question with which you can't agree or disagree. But you have to find out whether you, that is your form, your name, the things you have learned, the language that you know, the accumulated experience during forty, fifty, thirty, or whatever number of years, all that is not a structure of layers of words and memories. You understand this? Or you are something more than that? When you say, 'I am more than that' - the 'more' is the product of thought also. Right? You are following all this? I want to find some intelligent face with whom I can talk.

So the meaning of the self, the ego, the psyche, is not only the past remembrances, the past memories, those memories may be a thousand years, past structure of various contributory experiences, the 'me' is essentially the product of experience and thought. Whether you say, 'I am the Atman' - I am this or that, it is still the product of thought. Right? However much you may dislike the idea that you are merely a process of thought, the actuality is that you are. However much you may invent the super, super consciousness, it is still the process of thought. So are you, as a human being, merely, apart from the outer form, merely a structure put together by thought? Yes, sir! If you are, as you are, which is an actuality, then what place has thought and death? You understand? What is the relationship between thought and death, what is the relationship between the living, which is the movement of thought, in different directions, different skills, different specialities and so on, and death? You've got it? Are we communicating with each other? Good.

Now we have to go into something much deeper, which is: our consciousness - you understand by that word consciousness, to be conscious of, to be aware of the content of one's consciousness. The word consciousness from the Greek - I won't go into the etymological meaning - is to recognize, to comprehend. So our consciousness, which is you, is that consciousness different from another? If you say, 'It is my consciousness', which is my struggle, my particular idiosyncrasies, my particular form of expression, my particular form of existence, if you say, 'My consciousness is the result of my thinking, my pain, my loneliness, my relationship, which is a conflict' and so on and so on, is that consciousness different from another. Please go into this very carefully together. Please, as we said the other day, we are walking together on a path, in beauty, in friendship, with a sense of great affection, together walking on that path, discussing this problem as two friends, this is not a lecture, this is not a 'telling you what to think' or how to think but together we are investigating this question, which is very complex. Therefore one must have a subtle mind, clear thinking, to apply, not just theoretically spin a lot of words. So please bear that in mind when we are talking over together this problem. It is not my problem it is a human problem, it is not your problem, it is the problem of mankind.

So we are asking: is your consciousness, which is what you think, what you feel, all that, your desires, your ambitions, your greed, your violence, is that consciousness different from another? It is not because every human being throughout the world under whatever skies, and whatever the beauty of the land, they all go through what you are going through: sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, depression, arrogance, vanity, the utter sense of hopelessness, just like you. So your consciousness is not yours. Yes sir. It is the consciousness of all mankind. That means, please realize what it means, that you are not an individual, though we are trained, conditioned, religiously, through education, that we are separate entities, separate individuals, trying to reach some other form of thought, some other form of existence. We are not individuals, therefore there is not personal salvation, personal enlightenment. This is a very difficult thing to swallow, to really understand the full significance of this.

So when you die - please go into it, listen carefully - when you die are you, the psyche, dying, or the consciousness continues of all human beings? Have you understood this? Look sir, I die, I am going to die, ten years, another five years, whatever it is, is my consciousness, that is what I think, what I feel, what I have learnt, unlearnt, all the things human beings have collected, for a thousands years, not I have collected, but human beings have collected through millennia upon millennia, I am the result of all that. And my consciousness is similar to the consciousness of the American living far away, who goes through more or less what I have been through, pain, uncertainty, no security, the threat of war, shedding tears, like me, like you. And when I die the consciousness of all humanity continues, but, this is the point, please listen carefully, but if there is a transformation in that consciousness then there is a totally different relationship between that person who is out of that consciousness to the consciousness of all mankind. Have you understood it? No, no sir, please don't agree, it is not a question of agreeing or logically seeing, but the actual experiencing of it, the actual realization that you are not an individual and when you die, unless there is a mutation in your consciousness, the consciousness of humanity continues. But if you, who are part of that consciousness step out of that consciousness you are no longer fearful, uncertain, seeking security, and not finding it, the ending of sorrow, all that, if the brain is not finished with it you are merely contributing to the furtherance of the consciousness. Have you got it?

Please this is not just romantic nonsense, something you would like to have, something that would give hope. When you examine it logically, and most of us avoid, put aside our reason when we begin to think religiously, this demands logical examination, no sense of sentiment, romanticism but careful examination, then you discover that this is the common ground on which all humanity stands, because all humanity suffers, like you. And that consciousness, which is the ground upon which all of us stand, unless there is a movement away from that consciousness you are merely contributing further to that consciousness. And therefore death means - you answer it. I have put the question: so what does death mean? The ending of a physical substance, but thought as a material process, because thought is material, that continues in consciousness.

Now realizing all this let us talk about meditation. That is, if you want to. Which means we have to enquire what is a religious mind? What is a mind that has understood the nature, the true nature of religion? So we have to ask what do we mean by religion? The word religion etymologically is very uncertain. The real meaning of that word the dictionary does not tell you. All it tells you is, when you have looked it up in various dictionaries, the best, will tell you it is to bind, legare, to bind. So that is what the dictionary meaning is. We will leave that aside. We more or less know when we use the word religion, the speaker is using that word in the sense of all the religions that exist now, Christian, Hindu, Buddhism, Islam, all that is organized, the result of propaganda of two, five thousand years, all the rituals, which have lost totally their meaning, a lot of gibberish, all the tradition connected with it - the speaker says that is not religion. Putting on these strange robes doesn't mean you are religious. So the speaker is using that word religion not in the orthodox sense.

So far religion has been the worship of an idol, whether the Christian idol, or Hindu idol - the Buddhists have no idol but they have created their own idols - the Mohammedans have their own scripture which becomes the form of an idol. So mankind has turned to worship idols. We are saying that is not religion because that is invented by thought. Thought either made by hand or by the mind, it is still an idol. Therefore when you worship the idol it is worshipping yourself which is the result of thinking. You are following? So we are using very carefully the word religion. Don't translate it into something else which suits you. It is a simple word with a tremendous content in it, but the content which mankind has put into it is illusion, it has no reality. Reality can only be in living. You can't say, 'I believe in god' and do devilish work. You can't say, 'We are all for peace' and prepare for war. So if you want to have peace, live peacefully. That is, don't hurt another, don't exploit another, don't kill another, don't become corrupt, have a great sense of integrity.

So having examined that word very carefully, we can go much more into it but we haven't time, then what is a religious mind? You understand? That which we call religion is not; all the priests, all the circus that goes on in the name of it is sheer rubbish, whether in the East or West, or North or South. So having described what it is not, I don't know if you have realized something, when you say what is not actually inside and discard it totally, then there is a positive action. The very denial is the positive. I wonder if you see this. Through negation comes the positive. Not saying, 'I am thinking positively'. Right?

So to find out, or to discover, to come upon - that's better - to come upon, approach what is a religious mind, we must enquire then what is meditation? The word meditation means to ponder over. I meditate about a problem. I think over a problem. Or, I ponder over a complex mathematical problem. The meaning of that word is to think over, ponder over, consider, give thought, give attention. That is the meaning of the word meditation, according to various dictionaries, which is the common usage of language. So we are asking, not how to meditate - please see the difference - not how to meditate but what is meditation? Because if you say how to meditate then it becomes very simple; sit in a posture, hold your breath, follow a system, practise this, don't do that - that is not meditation, that is just repetition. Right? That is just continuing the same pattern repeated over and over and over again. Right? So that is not meditation. The system, the breathing, doing yoga, continuing in the same pattern, whether that word be some Koan, or Amen or some other Sanskrit word you use and repeat. That will invariably make the mind dull, obviously. When I keep on repeating, repeating, some kind of word I am mesmerizing myself and so naturally the brain becomes dull. That is what has happened to this country: religion has spoilt, destroyed our thinking capacity because you have followed, obeyed, never questioned, never doubted. Right?

So we are now enquiring into what is meditation? Is meditation apart from life, apart from daily living? That is, give twenty minutes in the morning, go out and do all the mischief you can, then in the afternoon sit quietly. You follow? And then continue in the evening. In the meantime be corrupt, be corrupted, dishonest. Is that meditation? Please enquire carefully. Or, is meditation part of living? Not one part of the day I meditate, the other part of the day I am raising hell.

So is meditation something other than the understanding, bringing about transformation in the very daily life of one human being? You understand my question? So we are going together into the question of what is it to have a religious mind. And what is it to meditate. And how does meditation relate to daily life? You understand? Now if I don't put order in my daily life, that is inwardly, I cannot have order outwardly. That is very clear. Society is my relationship with another, or with many. Society is made up like that. If I am greedy, ambitious, and you are greedy, ambitious, you are corrupt, I am corrupt, we produce a society, that which you have now in this country. That is a fact. So can I - I am meditating now. Please follow, I am meditating, I am not seeking god. God is another invention of my thought. I wonder if you understand all this? If there is god then god must wish man to have a rotten life. Right? But we human beings, have created god in our image. I wonder if you see all this.

So before - not before - meditation is putting my house in order. My house, not the room, the house in which the mind lives. If the mind is not clear, has integrity, consideration, love, how can I possibly meditate? It has no meaning. So my first concern in meditation is whether I can put my house in order. Logically, please see the logic of it first, the reason of it. Then if you understand the logical conclusions then I must begin with myself, my house. So I am seeking security, security outwardly, security inwardly. Right? That is what all of us are doing. We sacrifice the inward security to the outward security. Right? We are more concerned with the outward security. So we want somebody to guarantee outward security: the government, the business world, if I am a worker the business world must see that I have security. This is what is happening. So we want outward security, and the Communists and the so-called Marxists say have that first, then the human character, the human mind will change. Which means, change the outer, the circumstances, the State, the society, the government, change all that then man will naturally be good. And you have seen the experiment in Russia and all the other parts of Eastern Europe, that doesn't work because man wants freedom. You can't suppress him. And because he is free in the Western world and in India and Asia, parts of Asia, his freedom is to choose. He says, 'I am free because I can choose.' But his freedom is within the field - please listen carefully - within the field of knowledge. You have understood this? So he says, within that field I can choose. Go from one corner to another, North, South, East or West, and he thinks he is free.

So there must be freedom of order, which is intelligence. I wonder if you are understanding all this? So can meditation put the house in order? Or first put the house in order then that very order is meditation? You understand? No, you don't understand, don't agree with something you don't understand. Sirs, are we aware without any direction, aware that we live in disorder? Are we aware of it? Aware in the senses, I know, I live in disorder, my room, the ordinary room, is in disorder, my relationship is in disorder, my struggle, the very conflict indicates disorder. Am I aware of all that? Or the speaker is telling you and then you become aware of it. See the difference. Then you are not aware of it yourself. Somebody is telling you to be aware. I wonder if you see all this. So when you are aware of the fact that you yourself have seen that your house is in disorder and out of that awareness see what are the causes of disorder, when you discover the causes of disorder, the causes, then what has a cause can end. I wonder if you see this?

May I go a little bit further? Don't say 'Yes'. This is not a game we are playing. For god's sake! We have been saying that the universe has no cause. If it had a cause it would end. Anything that has a cause must either continue or end. Continue in the sense of repetition. Cause, effect - no listen - cause, effect, the effect becomes the cause, the cause becomes the effect, it is like a chain. But the universe has not a cause and therefore it is infinite. Right? Whereas human beings have a cause. Which is, their cause is their action is based on either reward or punishment which is a cause - I do this because I am rewarded, or I don't do this because I am punished. You know. This is the common factor in all of us: I will change if you reward me; or, if you punish me I will change. Therefore our existence has a cause, therefore - please follow it - therefore our existence because it has a cause can come to an end, which is death. You are following all this?

So can the house be put in order without conflict, without determination, 'I must have', which again brings conflict? Or the house can be kept in order, the inward house, by perception, only perception. That is, to see 'what is', not 'what should be', to see 'what is' and remain with it. I wonder if you understand this? Look sir: I am in sorrow, suppose I am in sorrow, that is part of my house. The sorrow which has come about for various reasons, my son is dead, my brother is dead, the husband, whoever it is, dead, sorrow, and never to escape from it, never to rationalize it because then you are away, you are moving away from the fact of sorrow. That is, when you rationalize it, when you say past life, when you try to analyze it, that is moving away from 'what is'. If thought doesn't move away from 'what is' then you hold it. Right? Like a vessel that holds water, that sorrow is the water and your mind is the vessel and it is holding it. Not moving away from it, which means you have given complete attention to that which you are holding. I wonder if you are following? You are following this sir?

Then when you give total attention, which is total perception, then that which you are holding has no meaning any more. I wonder if you understand. Please just verbally understand it. But when you begin to realize the depth of it, the beauty of such a thing, then you are putting - the mind itself is putting order in itself. You are not separate from the mind, you are that. So when you hold it without any movement the mind itself is in order.

Now, suppose you have put the house in order, which you have not unfortunately, if you had we would have a different society, different government, different relationship with each other. But since you have not that is up to you. But suppose, if you have put your house in order, complete order by understanding totally what is disorder, not understanding what is order, by understanding what is disorder, out of that comprehension, realization, awareness and giving your total attention to the various contributory causes of that disorder, then order comes without you seeking order. Then what is meditation? You understand?

Are you working as hard as the speaker is working? No, you are not, obviously. Oh gosh! Then what is meditation? Can you look at that tree without the word, without the remembrance that it is called a tree, only observe without any movement of the past interfering with you observation? Have you ever tried this? No, of course not. Just look now sir. There is that tree in front of you. Look at it, if I may suggest, without the word, without the naming, the species, just to observe the whole tree. Can you do it? Similarly, can you look at yourself without the word, without all the past remembrances throwing themselves and so preventing your observation of yourself as you are? You understand? Is this too much in one talk? Please. Are you following what I am saying? No, sir, it is not a moment for a conversation, sorry.

Can you look at yourself, which is meditation, please we are meditating now, can you look at yourself without the process of recognition taking place? That is, can you look at yourself without the observer, who is the past, and looking at the present? You understand? What am I to do? Sir, let me go on, you listen if you can catch it, if you can't it's up to you.

Is truth something that is related to the past? Is truth something that you can capture and hold? Or truth is something that is nameless, timeless, and to come to it, to approach it, there is no path to it. Right? If there is a path to it, it is a fixed point. But truth is a living thing, it is not something dead, static, it is living, dynamic, full of something extraordinary. So as long as the brain is conditioned in the field of knowledge, that is - may I go into it a little bit - that is, our brain is conditioned by experience, experience brings about knowledge, that knowledge is stored in the brain, in the cells of the brain, which then is memory, that memory acts as thought, from thought there is action. In this cycle we are caught, if you observe yourself you can see the fact. Whether your experience or a thousand years experience it is stored, which becomes knowledge - scientific knowledge, technological knowledge, the knowledge of relationship, knowledge. From that knowledge there is memory, knowledge is memory, memory then responds as thought to a challenge, of course: you ask me a question, I reply from memory. And that memory, its reaction is thought, then thought acts, from that action you learn. So you are back again in this cycle. That is, experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action, from action you learn, modify, past knowledge, you are caught in the cycle. Right? That is how the brain functions. Because in that there is complete security, which is mechanical. I don't know if you are following?

So meditation is enquiring, asking, questioning, whether there is an action which is not based on this chain, on this momentum, in this process. Ask yourself this question sir: is there an action which is not based on knowledge? Ask it, find out. Because all our action is based on knowledge, which is thought. And therefore as thought is limited because knowledge is limited, there is no complete knowledge about anything, you can't, therefore thought is limited. Right? Please see that. So is there an action which is not limited? Understood my question? I will give you an example, if I may, which is: most people are nationalistic, their patriotism, their flag and all that nonsense. And the brain has become accustomed to that. And we see the importance of global relationship. Right? Because it is coming, it is taking place now but we still stick to our nationalism. Global relationship is becoming more important, it has to take place, but our brain refuses to respond to that because we are conditioned, we are trained, our education says some dirty little flag, paper, to salute it, to worship it and all that kind of nonsense. So the brain refuses and yet it sees the necessity of the other, so there is a conflict. Now to end that conflict don't be a national. You understand? So our brain refuses to move from that which it has known.

Meditation is to understand the whole movement of the known, and to see whether it is possible to move away from it. Sir, you understand, that requires sensitivity. That means the senses must be awakened, not just one part of them. So meditation is to put the house in order. Meditation is to understand the nature of knowledge, knowledge of the books, the Vedas, Upanishads, and all that stuff, to understand the nature of knowledge and to see how dangerous it is becoming because it is repetitive. And to see, to observe this knowledge and hold that knowledge so completely that itself begins to - it is like holding water, it soon drips away. But you have to hold it, you have to see where knowledge is necessary, where knowledge is not necessary.

Then what is meditation? We are still pursuing, please. Which is to have mind a that has put its house in order, has seen the very complex nature of knowledge, and to find out whether there is an action, a way of living without the whole burden of knowledge. And then also to enquire what is attention? And what is concentration? Because that is part of meditation.

Concentration any person can do. Right? From school you are taught that, concentrate on a book, when you really want to look out of the window the teacher comes along and bangs you on the head, or tells you to concentrate on the book. So you learn very quickly to concentrate on the book. Which means you focus all your energy on a particular point, on a particular page, on a particular skill; if you are a scientists you concentrate on that, or if you are a businessman, concentrate on making money, cheating, you know the whole business of it. No, you all cheat, don't laugh. We are not insulting the business man. You are so ready to laugh at somebody, you are not ready to laugh at yourself. So we more or less know the consequences of concentration, forcing thought to come to a certain point. That is to resist all intrusion of other thoughts, to give thought a particular point upon which it can dwell constantly.

And the other is attention. Attention is not concentration. Attention - now just a minute. Can you attend completely on that tree, attend, which means to look with all your energy, with all your nervous energy, capacity, with all that look? And when you do so look with your total attention there is no centre from which you are looking. Right? Do experiment with this. Look at it. Somebody. Yes, look at your wife, or your husband, or these strange people sitting in front of me, look at them, giving your complete attention. In that attention there is no point from which you are looking, you are taking the whole thing in. You understand? No, you haven't done this.

So attention is far more important than concentration because concentration is merely focusing on one point; attention has no borders because it has no centre so as to have a border. You understand? That which has a centre has a diameter, but when there is no centre there is no periphery. Attention is that.

Then you have to enquire into what is silence? The mind - please follow all this - the mind has put the house in order, has understood the nature of knowledge. Knowledge is necessary to go home, to drive a car, to speak, to do that, but psychological knowledge is not necessary. Psychological knowledge is the 'me', the accumulated experiences and so on. So also I have to understand attention, concentration. Then I am asking: such a mind is completely silent. Either that silence is illusory, put together by thought, determined to be silent. Or silence has no cause. I wonder if you follow this? So the mind has been through all this, not ideationally but actually, then what is silence? There is that whistle of the train, the silence between that whistle and another whistle, the silence between two notes, two noises, between two sounds, the silence between two thoughts, all that is still within the realm of cognition. But when the mind is completely silent it is not aware that it is silent. It must be otherwise be merely playing tricks. I wonder if you understand?

So is there a silence without any cause, and therefore that silence has no end? That which has a cause can end, but a silence that has no cause has no ending. It doesn't say, 'Can I maintain it?' I wonder if you follow all this? Because that silence is absolutely necessary, because in that silence there is no movement of thought. In that silence only that which is sacred, that which is nameless, which is not measurable by thought is. And that which is, is the most sacred. This is meditation. Right sirs.